Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Patients' satisfaction and job limitations after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) based on occupation intensity have not been evaluated. This study aimed to assess patients' ability and satisfaction with their return to work following primary THA depending on intensity of their occupation. METHODS:This retrospective review surveyed patients undergoing primary THA between June 2011 and January 2022, with at least one year of follow-up, on return to work rates. Of 1,713 participants, 1,176 (68.7%) reported working prior to THA and were stratified into high intensity (HI) (i.e. laborer, construction), standard intensity (SI) (i.e. walking, climbing stairs), and low intensity (LI) (i.e. desk jobs) groups. Baseline demographics and survey responses were compared. Among patients who worked preoperatively, 66 (5.6%), 450 (38.3%), and 660 (56.1%) were in the HI, SI, and LI groups, respectively. RESULTS:High rates of workers across all groups reported improvements in their ability to work following THA, with 74.8% of SI, 68.8% of LI workers and 63.6% of HI workers reporting "remarkable" or "modest improvement." The HI group was more likely male, younger, and a current smoker compared to the SI and LI groups. Among LI workers, 47.2% returned within the first month and83.6% returned within two months. SI workers showed a similar pattern, with 36.2% returning in less than a month and 79.7% returning within two months. HI workers had a comparatively lower return rate, with 12.3% returning within the first month and 52.6% returning within two months. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Across all intensity levels, THA enables improvements in perceived work function and satisfaction. However, higher-intensity work requires more time, is more difficult, and yields lower return-to-work satisfaction compared to low-intensity work.

BACKGROUND:Annotating free-text clinical notes into structured data is critical for future large-scale data analysis in institutional and national orthopaedic registries. In total hip arthroplasty (THA), classifying implant fixation, use of technology, and especially surgical approach are particularly difficult for classical machine-learning techniques. In this pilot, we evaluated the feasibility of GPT-4 to capture and justify these common elements in THA operative notes using a custom few-shot learning prompt. METHODS:The GPT-4 was trained with a few-shot learning approach using plain language descriptions of various fixations, technologies, and approaches, along with examples from gold-standard operative notes-four for fixation, 11 for technology, and 13 for surgical approach. The test set comprised 240 unique notes (60 for fixation, 90 for technology, and 120 for approach) from primary THAs performed by 38 surgeons at a single institution (November 2011 to March 2024). The GPT-4's output was compared against manual chart reviews for accuracy. The quality of clinical justifications was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores for readability, self-BLEU scores for logical diversity, and character-level sequence matches with original notes. RESULTS:The GPT-4 classified fixation, technology, and approach with an overall accuracy of 100, 98.9, and 97.5%, respectively. The model also provided justifications for classifications with average FKGL scores of 17.9, 16.2, and 24.4 for fixation, technology, and approach, respectively, and average self-BLEU scores of < 0.1 each. Justifications had character-level sequence matches of 87.6, 89.2, and 96.5%, respectively, with direct note citations for fixation, technology, and approach. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Applying GPT-4 with a custom few-shot prompt to THA operative notes demonstrated excellent performance in capturing fixation, technology, and approach methods. Moreover, the model's ability to cite details from the original notes is critical for model validation before widespread adoption, exhibiting a promising alternative to manual chart review for clinical data capture.

BACKGROUND:Recovery after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) shows considerable variability in both pain relief and functional improvement. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-JR) is a widely used measure for evaluating these outcomes. This study aimed to identify distinct latent recovery trajectories, which represent underlying, unobserved patterns of postoperative recovery inferred from KOOS-JR scores, and to explore patient characteristics associated with these trajectories. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis at a tertiary academic center from January 2020 to March 2023. Inclusion criteria required patients to have completed a preoperative KOOS-JR questionnaire and at least two postoperative follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, or 12 months. Exclusion criteria included bilateral or revision procedures. Collected characteristics included age, sex, Body Mass Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, race, smoking status, procedure type, anesthesia type, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition. Growth mixture modeling was used to model recovery trajectories, with associations evaluated using the "three-step approach." Model fit was assessed using the Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria, Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio, posterior probabilities, and entropy values. RESULTS:Of 700 eligible patients, growth mixture modeling identified two recovery trajectories: 95.4% of patients (trajectory 1 [T1]) demonstrated steady improvement, while 4.6% (trajectory 2 [T2]) began with lower KOOS-JR scores (mean 9.7 vs. 47.9 for T1) but recovered to near T1 levels by 1 month. Trajectory 2 patients were markedly younger (mean 64 vs. 67 years), had higher Body Mass Index (36 vs. 31), included more Black or African American individuals (38% vs. 20%), and were more frequently discharged to rehabilitation facilities (16% vs. 3.3%; all P < 0.05). Each additional year of age reduced the likelihood of following T2 by 4% (odds ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 0.99; P = 0.016), while discharge to rehabilitation increased the likelihood 6-fold (odds ratio = 6.22, 95% confidence interval, 1.89 to 17.8; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study identified two distinct recovery trajectories after TKA, with notably no trajectory emerging showing decline or stagnation from preoperative levels. Despite lower baseline scores, patients in T2 achieved substantial recovery, suggesting TKA provides meaningful improvement even for those with substantially compromised function. The findings also highlight the need to explore whether rehabilitation discharge directly influences the observed postoperative gains.

BACKGROUND:Robotic assistance (RA) is increasingly used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for more accurate bony resection and balancing. However, the impact of robotic TKA (RATKA) on clinical outcomes and patient-reported measures (PROMs) remains unclear. This study aims to compare RATKA and conventional TKA (CTKA) using a novel robotic system. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on 10,031 patients who underwent TKA from February 2021 to October 2024. 289 RATKAs were performed with a hand-held robotic system. These RATKA cases were 1:1 propensity-score matched to CTKA for patient demographics, surgeon, implant system, and articulation design. Postoperative and clinical outcomes including surgical time, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), debridement, reoperations and revisions were collected and analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS, JR) and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. RESULTS:RATKA demonstrated significantly shorter LOS (30.04 vs. 51.91 hours, p < 0.001, respectively) compared to CTKA. There was no difference in surgical time (107.18 vs. 106.22 minutes, p = 0.349). Although there was no statistical difference in 90-day ED visits, the majority of the CTKA revisits were due to surgery-related causes when compared to the RATKAs (1.38% vs. 0.34%, p = 0.239). While RATKAs had higher incidence of MUAs (2.07% vs. 0.34%, p = 0.201), CTKAs had more reoperations (1 vs. 0, p = 0.369) and more revisions than the RATKAs (6 vs. 0, p = 0.117). In terms of PROMs, both RATKAs and CTKAs showed similar improvements in KOOS, JR and PROMIS pain scores following TKA, with no significant differences in the magnitude of improvement at early postoperative timepoints. However, at the one-year follow-up, RATKA demonstrated significantly greater reduction in PROMIS pain intensity (Δ-9.12, p = 0.032) compared to CTKAs. CONCLUSIONS:This retrospective analysis showed that the novel RATKA resulted in reduced length of stay, fewer reoperations, and greater reduction in one-year PROMIS pain intensity compared to CTKAs, despite having a higher incidence of MUA rates. Further research is needed to clarify these differences clinically and enhance patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Sleep impairment following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is common and may decrease patient satisfaction and early recovery. Standardized postoperative recommendations for sleep disturbance have not been established. We aimed to assess whether melatonin use improves sleep quality and quantity in the acute period following THA. METHODS:Patients undergoing primary, elective THA between July 2021 and March 2024 were prospectively enrolled and randomized to receive either five mg of melatonin or a placebo nightly for 14 days postoperatively. Participants recorded nightly pain scores on the visual analog scale (VAS), the number of hours slept, and the number of nighttime awakenings in a sleep diary. Sleep disturbance was assessed preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 14 using the patient-reported outcome measurement information system sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) form. Epworth Sleepiness Scores (ESS) were collected to assess sleep quality and were the primary outcome of this study. Of the 139 patients who completed the study protocol, there were 64 patients in the placebo group and 75 patients in the melatonin group. RESULTS:Both groups demonstrated comparable postoperative ESS (melatonin: 6.0 ± 4.0; placebo: 6.8 ± 4.5, P = 0.35). Melatonin patients experienced significantly more hours slept on POD2 (6.5 ± 1.7; 5.7 ± 2.4, P = 0.017) and averaged over POD one to three (6.1 ± 1.6; 5.7 ± 2.0, P = 0.14), although this was not statistically significant. Fewer nighttime awakenings in the melatonin group were observed on POD two (2.7 ± 1.5; 3.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.28), although this was not statistically significant. The melatonin group demonstrated significantly lower postoperative PROMIS-SD scores (52.5 ± 9.3; 56.3 ± 9.2, P = 0.040). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Melatonin may not improve overall postoperative sleep quality following THA as measured by the ESS. Melatonin may promote sleep duration in the POD one to three period, although potential benefits wane after POD three. Melatonin is safe and can be considered for THA patients experiencing early postoperative sleep disturbance.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:A two-stage revision has long been the gold standard for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), with real-component articulating spacers becoming overwhelmingly popular. While several studies have evaluated the success of these spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to our knowledge, this is the first to specifically compare outcomes of spacers stratified by the level of liner constraint. METHODS:This retrospective analysis reviewed 135 patients who were indicated for two-stage rTKA due to PJI between 2011 and 2023 at a single specialty urban academic institution. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the polyethylene liner constraint used during the first stage: cruciate retaining (CR), posterior stabilized (PS), and varus-valgus constrained (VVC). Of these 135 patients, 60 (44%) were categorized in the CR group, 47 (35%) were in the PS group, and 28 (21%) were in the VVC group. These groups were compared after each stage for peri- and postoperative outcomes such as operative time, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, knee range of motion (ROM), as well as incidence of re-revision and reinfection. RESULTS:The mean postoperative LOS was not different among cohorts for both stages. Operative time was significantly longer in the VVC group after the second stage (P = 0.007), while there was no difference after the first stage (P = 0.085). There were no differences in ROM after both stages. The mean ROM after the first stage was 92° in the CR group, 90° in the PS group, and 85° in the VVC group (P = 0.46). After the second stage, ROM was 101° in both the CR and VVC groups and 107° in the PS group (P = 0.28). There were no differences in the risk of re-revision due to re-infection across the groups after the first or second stage procedures. The re-infection incidence after the first stage was 14% in the VVC group, compared to 5% in the CR group and 4% in the PS group (P = 0.14). After the second stage, the reinfection risk was 21% in the VVC group, 8% in the CR group, and 13% in the PS group (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:No significant differences were observed in the risk of complications such as re-infection, re-revisions, and postoperative ROM, suggesting that the choice of liner constraint in two-stage revision can be left up to surgeon's discretion.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Maintaining follow-up after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is critical to monitor patient outcomes and complications. However, patient factors associated with follow-up compliance have not been described previously. This study aimed to characterize demographic and perioperative characteristics associated with TJA follow-up compliance. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of all primary, elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures at an urban, tertiary care center from 2011 to 2022. Patient follow-ups were categorized as early (0 to 90 days), mid-term (91 days to two years), and late-term (greater than two years). Patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, smoking status, spoken language, body mass index, income class, insurance type, distance from hospital, 90-day readmission, American Society of Anesthesia Status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were compared at each period, and logistic regression identified predictors of follow-up. RESULTS:In total, 2,836 TKA and 3,056 THA procedures were analyzed, with overall follow-up rates of 78.9 and 76.8%, respectively. Among all TJA patients, those who did not have follow-up were more likely to be younger, men, White, active smokers, live further from the hospital, and have lower CCIs. Uniquely, for TKA patients, higher income status predicted lower overall and early follow-up rates, while English-speaking predicted lower early and higher late follow-up rates in this subgroup. Differences between groups based on follow-up status decreased as follow-up time increased. Regression analyses showed loss to follow-up increased with increased distance from the hospital and current smoking. Uniquely, for THA, men predicted loss-to-follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Younger age, men, White race, higher income, current smoking, and increased distance from the hospital are associated with increased early, but not late, loss to follow-up after TJA. Future studies should assess the influence of other factors, including home support and telemedicine use, on follow-up rates.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to assess the variations in the positioning of components between sides in patients who underwent staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA), and whether these variations affected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review included 207 patients who underwent staged bilateral THA between June 2017 and November 2022. Leg length, the height and anteversion of the acetabular component, and the coronal and sagittal angles of the femoral component were assessed radiologically and compared with the contralateral THA. The effect of the surgical approach and the technology used on this variation was also assessed. Linear regression was used to investigate the variations between the two THAs and the PROMs. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Between the two sides, the mean leg length varied by 4.6 mm (0.0 to 21.2), the mean height of the acetabular component varied by 3.3 mm (0.0 to 13.7), the mean anteversion varied by 8.2° (0.0° to 28.7°), the mean coronal alignment of the femoral component varied by 1.1° (0.0° to 6.9°), and the mean sagittal alignment varied by 2.3° (0.0° to 10.5°). The use of the direct anterior approach resulted in significantly more variation in the alignment of the femoral component in both the coronal (1.3° vs 1.0°; p = 0.036) and sagittal planes (2.8° vs 2.0°; p = 0.012) compared with the use of the posterior approach. The posterior approach generally led to more anteversion of the acetabular component than the anterior approach. The use of robotics or navigation for positioning the acetabular compoment did not increase side-to-side variations in acetabular component-related positioning or leg length. Despite considerable side-to-side variations, the mean Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome, Joint Replacement (HOOS JR) score was not affected by variations in the postioning of the components. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Staged bilateral THA resulted in considerable variation in the positioning of the components between the two sides. The direct anterior approach led to more variations in anteversion of the acetabular component and sagittal alignment of the femoral component than the posterior approach. The use of computer navigation and robotics did not improve the consistency of the positioning of the components in bilateral THA. Variations in the positioning of the components was not associated with differences in PROMs, indicating that patients can tolerate these differences.

BACKGROUND:Two-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) often include antibiotic-loaded cement spacers to control for infection and preserve function. While studies have reported on complications (dislocations, readmissions, and reoperations) after static versus articulating spacer types, there is a paucity of evidence about whether the degree of spacer constraint in articulating spacers affects these complications. This study aims to address a key gap in understanding as to whether the level of spacer constraint affects complications in two-stage revision THA utilizing articulating spacers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) Among patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained articulating antibiotic spacers during first-stage revision THA for PJI, are there differences in major complications, such as dislocation, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, reinfection, and unplanned revisions? (2) After second-stage reimplantation, do patients who received a nonconstrained versus constrained liner during the first stage show differences in the risk of complications, reoperations, and readmissions? METHODS:This is a retrospective review of 539 patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for PJI at a single-specialty, urban academic referral center between July 2011 and March 2023. Of these 539 patients, 72% (388) were excluded for undergoing a full component revision (femoral or acetabular) for any reason before their first stage, 3% (15) for receiving static spacers, and 6% (35) for receiving prefabricated femoral mono-block stems as part of their first stage. Those who underwent only liner exchange were not excluded. The remaining 19% (101 of 539) of patients were included in the final analysis and categorized by degree of liner constraint: 32 were in the nonconstrained group and 69 were in the constrained group. All surgeons included in this study specialize in adult reconstruction and are fellowship trained, and the selected level of constraint was solely based on their routine practice for articulating spacer construct. Baseline characteristics and clinical data, including age, self-reported gender, race, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, smoking status, surgical history, and perioperative details, were collected. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups except for smoking status. A priori power analysis determined that 150 patients (75 per group) would be needed to detect a statistical difference in the risk of dislocation between groups, assuming a 20% dislocation risk for the constrained group, at a 0.05 alpha level, and 80% power. RESULTS:Between patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained liners, there were no differences in complications after the first stage of revision. Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained liners developed dislocations compared with 3% (2 of 69) in the constrained group (relative risk [RR] 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 12.3]; p > 0.99). Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 7% (5 of 69) in the constrained group (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). Similarly, 3% (1 of 32) versus 7% (5 of 69) had persistent infection (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). One incident of loosening occurred in the constrained group. There were also no differences in spacer revision incidence: 10% (3 of 32) of the nonconstrained group and 10% (7 of 69) of the constrained group underwent an unplanned revision after the first stage (RR 1.0 [95% CI 0.29 to 3.91]; p = 0.91). For the second stage, dislocation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 10% (5 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.2 to 5.9]; p > 0.99). When comparing periprosthetic fractures, 10% (2 of 21) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 4% (2 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 2.2 [95% CI 0.3 to 16.6]; p = 0.78). Nineteen percent (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group had persistent infection compared with 12% (6 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.5 [95% CI 0.39 to 5.74]; p = 0.81). The occurrence of readmission after the second stage was 19% (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group compared with 15% (8 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.3 to 3.9]; p > 0.99). Twenty-four percent (5 of 21) of patients in the nonconstrained group required a surgery-related emergency department visit compared with 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 5.6]; p = 0.64). The incidence of reoperation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p > 0.99). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicated no differences in the risk of dislocations, reinfections, reoperations, and readmissions between patients undergoing constrained versus nonconstrained articulating spacers for two-stage revision THA. Because constrained liners are typically preferred in patients at higher risk of instability, our findings suggest that their use does not necessarily increase the risk of complications. However, because of the small sample size, larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether there is superiority of liner constraint in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, therapeutic study.

BACKGROUND:Optimal femoral stem alignment and femoral canal fill have been associated with improved osteointegration in patients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Direct anterior approach (DAA) has become more popular among new surgeons, and the ability to achieve appropriate stem alignment and canal fill due to limited surgical exposure may pose added risks. To mitigate these concerns, several modern tissue sparing stem designs have been designed. This study aimed to compare implant canal fill and alignment between two of the leading DAA-friendly femoral stems available. METHODS:This was a multi-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent DAA THA with either A (n = 149) or B stem (n = 85) between 2021 and 2023 and had a minimum one-year follow-up. Radiographic measures of proximal femoral morphology, including canal calcar ratio (CCR), Morphological Cortical Index (MCI), and Dorr Class (based on the CCR), as well as postoperative measures including femoral canal fill ratio (CFR), signs of osteointegration and stem alignment were analyzed and compared between stem types. RESULTS:, p = 0.082). Spot weld formation was significantly higher in stem A group (59.7% vs. 37.6%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:For patients with similar femoral morphology undergoing DAA THA, the stem A group demonstrated superior anatomical fit in the metaphyseal region, as evidenced by CFR, spot weld formation and implant positioning. Further longer follow up research is needed to elucidate these findings and their correlation to clinical outcomes.